Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).
This is the last of a three-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.

A recent survey on millennial issues showed that 76% of Americans believe
in the second coming of Christ. Does that sound like a number that could be
off-handedly dismissed as being "very few"?
(R) Wow! I'm amazed by that figure! I had no idea that so many people
believed in the Advent. But anyway, such a belief doesn't automatically make
someone narrow minded.(MB) One must consider *why* they have that belief and whether or not it is
subject to being changed or abandoned in order to make that determination.
(R) The specifics of the belief, its degree of certainty and
exactitude, are what determine whether or not it is narrow.(MB) OK, I'll buy that. Now, what are those specifics and
what supports them?
(R) Personally, I shy away from making exact predictions about the Apocalypse,
because of a rather scary admonition in the Book of Revelations about doing that
sort of thing.(MB) What is this admonition? Why is it scary? What compels you to believe in
it? What evidence is there by which anybody else could come to believe it? Why
is the Book of Revelation authoritative on this matter? BTW, I thought you
didn't use the Bible to justify your beliefs.Are you saying that it is only the scope of my essay that
is wrong? Does that mean that everything else is correct?
(R) If by "scope" you mean painting all religious believers with the same
brush and then condemning them as a group, then yes, this is definitely a
problem in your essay. I also find its general tone intolerant. As far as its
degree of correctness goes, I think you make some valid points, but I disagree
with a good bit of it.(MB) Yet, you can't show any specific point which is wrong, nor can you show why
they don't apply to more than a small minority of believers. It would seem that
it is primarily the larger issue of belief/non-belief that spurs your
disagreement. Creationists do the same thing when they dispute the whole of
evolution without being able to refute any part of it. Yet, they remain
convinced that the theory is somewhere between "wrong" and "sacrilegious" and
won't be swayed from their views.While scientists may disagree on specific minor details
of certain theories (such as evolution), there is no
disagreement that the major theory itself is correct or that the
methods used by science are sound. There is only one
"science" in the world (or, for that matter, in the universe).
(R) This assertion, that scientists always agree on everything except minor
details, is laughable.(MB) Once again, you've utterly failed to read or understand what I said.
First, I said "certain theories" and not "everything". Second, I referred to
"major theories" and the "methods used by science". Finally, you say that this
is "laughable", but give no examples to back up your mirth. This would suggest
that your dispute is merely for the sake of being unwilling to agree with me
about something. If not, how about putting a little meat on the bones of your
claim?
(R) You are correct to say there is only one "science" in
the universe, just as it is correct to say there is only one physical reality.(MB) OK.
(R) It is also correct to say there is only one historical realty.(MB) This would be true only for those who travel along the same path through
the dimension of time, but, for all practical purposes, you wouldn't be wrong.
(R) And it is correct to say there is only one reality of the nature of
God.(MB) First, the big question about whether or not there is any God must be
resolved. If that can be answered successfully in the affirmative, then we can
consider what his nature might be. If the answer is "No", then "the reality of
his nature" becomes an irrelevant question.
(R) However, big problems arise when different individuals try to reconcile
their vastly differing pictures of these realities.(MB) That's why evidence is the deciding factor. Anybody can put forth an idea.
It's only through the available evidence that any such idea can gain validity.
The real problems arise when ideas without evidence try to gain equality with
ideas which do have evidence to support them. Logically, this is no problem
when one recognizes standards of evidence and the burden of proof. Emotionally,
however, one can get rather testy when his favorite idea just doesn't measure
up.
(R) I don't know enough about physics or chemistry to know what the major issues
are in these sciences, but I know there are some, and that they cause major
disagreements among scientists.(MB) "Some"? And, are you saying that all of them are sources of major
disagreements? Or, are you merely misinterpreting debate over details as
general dispute over the whole of larger theories? In any case, since you
didn't give any examples of these things you say you "know", I really can't
comment on any of them.
(R) Look at Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking -- I get the feeling these two don't
see eye to eye on many things.(MB) Such as? You must be more specific if you are going to formulate arguments
based upon these things.
(R) I work every day with engineers and I guarantee if I take the same
engineering problem to two different engineers, I will get two different
"correct" solutions. I'm certain the same is true of scientists and their
professional opinions.(MB) You're confusing details with overall theory again. No engineer will
dispute the tenets of basic physics. They will argue, however, about the best
ways to exploit them in their designs. That is, after all, what promotes
creativity and new inventions.
(R) And these are the pure sciences, where things are fairly cut and dried.
Move into a science which is less exact and see what you find. Biology,
anthropology, economics, sociology, or psychology for example, or history, which
if not truly a science, at least should be treated scientifically. You'll see
major disagreements in these disciplines, disagreements on basic, fundamental
issues. But that doesn't mean the disciplines themselves are bunk.(MB) Once again, you'll need to provide specifics before anything can be
competently addressed. I also find it interesting how you would seek to equate
biology and anthropology -- which deal with hard facts -- with such things as
psychology that deal more with abstract theory.In any case, there are no examples anywhere in science where any fundamental
disagreements are as large and as basic as those surrounding religion. What can
be a larger fundamental disagreement than questions about the existence of
God?Religion certainly can't claim anything similar. Competing
religions disagree on major points. Sects of the same religion
hold mutually-exclusive positions. Believers in the same sect
disagree on interpretation and scope of Scripture. If the God
theory was correct, there would be no such problems. There
would be only one religion and there would be no disputes or
differences concerning it.
(R) You are so far off base on this one it almost isn't even necessary to give
a rebuttal. But anyway, here goes: There is only one physical reality,
however, there is little agreement among men as to what it is.(MB) Oh? Really? How many men disagree that there is a universe and that the
universe is composed of matter and energy? Some may dispute the details, but
no sane man would dispute that it exists.
(R) There is only one reality of the nature of God and there is a similar lack
of agreement on this.(MB) It's hardly "similar". While no one doubts the existence of the universe
and its basic nature, there is plenty of disagreement about the existence of God
and plenty of disagreement among believers about his nature.
(R) The fact that we do not understand either of these, except imperfectly and
differently, doesn't automatically mean our attempts to understand are
invalid.(MB) The fact that the very basic premise of the existence of God inspires
disagreement while the very basic premise of the existence of the universe does
not makes the two things unequal. Imperfect knowledge of one lends absolutely
no validity to any claim about the other. Each must stand or fall on its own
merits (or lack of).If there's no definitive reason for preferring your religion
above any other, then there's no reason to prefer its beliefs or
its deity. If there's no reason to prefer them, why even bother
to promote them?
(R) I say exactly the same of your philosophy. There may be no reason to
believe in God, but neither is there any reason not to, so why try to convince
people there is no God? Your unprovable beliefs have no inherent superiority
over any other, so why do you continue to insist they are superior?(MB) As stated in an earlier reply, it is a logical fallacy to support belief in
an idea simply because there is no reason not to believe it. Belief is a
positive existential claim and, as such, bears the burden of proof. Non-belief
is the more logical position when that burden of proof has not been successfully
borne. This applies equally to any claim of existence for anything in either
the natural or supernatural (or any other) realm. Belief "because there's no
reason not to" is an argument from ignorance that arises from the inability or
unwillingess to understand any such reason.I was only considering the major sects, i.e., those with
at least 5,000 members.
(R) Excuse me for not instantly recognizing that.(MB) No problem. I should have been more specific, but lower numbers of
differing sects would be better for your arguments (although still problematic).
Higher numbers are better for mine.Certainly, there are several times more of the small, fringe groups with
their own wild ideas. In any case, the more different and widely-divergent sects
of the same basic religion which exist, the stronger my point becomes.
(R) Your point is that no religious beliefs are valid because there isn't
exact agreement among believers on them, and all religion is bunk because
different believers have different beliefs. Your point, sir, is rubbish, and
could not be any weaker. Nothing can strengthen it.(MB) The point is that the varying sects of what purports to be the same
religion take wildly divergent and mutually-exclusive paths towards attempting
to justify the same basic premise -- that God exists. When the proponents of
such a belief can't even agree on something so basic, the whole idea begins to
collapse under its own weight. Evidence to support a particular sect could help
strengthen the premise, but none exists. Part of the reason why so many sects
exist is that none presents a case that is compelling enough to gain general
acceptance even among those who are predisposed to believe the basic premise.
If the believers can't settle on a story, how is anybody else supposed to accept
it? One can only conclude that the premise itself is the true rubbish.You are quite correct. Not only is their friction and
incompatible beliefs between the smaller sects, but it exists all
the way up to Protestants vs. Catholics. Once again, so much
dispute about basic principles just reinforces my points about
the religion itself.
(R) Once again, your point is so bad and so insupportable as to be laughable.
You're saying, "None of them agree, so they're all wrong." This ranks high
among the flawed reasoning I've seen.(MB) That's not what I'm saying. If they're not all wrong, then one of them
must be right (a basic logic principle). If one is right, then that fact can be
demonstrated (or, at least, strongly suggested). Unfortunately, this can't be
done. So, my reasoning is hardly "flawed". In fact, it is practically
self-evident.
(R) Yes, there are differences between Protestants and Catholics (the Protestant
concept of the "priesthood of all believers" is probably the most significant)
but the fact there is disagreement among believers doesn't mean no one is right.
It is just is very difficult to determine who it is.(MB) Tell you what...once y'all get your disagreements ironed out amongst
yourselves first, then you can come and bring a unified story out to the rest of
us. Otherwise, who are we suppose to believe?Certainly you don't believe that such trivialities are
enough to cause new sects to be formed?
(R) Take my word for it, the above example is not trivial to many Baptists,
who adamantly oppose the use of alcohol in any form. I consider it pretty
minor, though.(MB) As do I. However, since the rite of communion is supposed to be an
important ceremony that is necessary to achieve salvation and is practiced as
Jesus taught at the Last Supper, I don't see how there can be so much confusion
about how it is supposed to be conducted.On a side note, I find it mildly amusing how the bread and wine are supposed to
be symbolic of the act of partaking of the body and blood of Christ when the Old
Testament considers such acts to be serious sins. Of course, this can be blown
off as being "Jewish law". Then again, Jesus was a Jew. Hmmm...It's the important differences that cause division. Such things include the
sects' authority, rites and practices, and doctrinal basis. Some question the
divinity of Jesus. That certainly isn't a trivial difference.
(R) The divinity of Christ is the most important of the issues you mention.
The others are important to varying degrees. Of the eight major sects I
mentioned, which together account for almost 150 million of the 200 million
American Christians, all are firmly committed to the idea of Christ's
divinity.(MB) Why shouldn't *all* sects of Christianity be firmly committed to that idea
if it supposed to be such a firm truth? The idea that Christ died for Man's
sins and that one can only achieve salvation through him is a very basic tenet
of Christianity, is it not? If that can be called into doubt, doesn't this
present a major problem for the religion?
(R) It is my opinion that as long as a group which calls itself Christian
considers Christ to be divine, other differences are relatively minor.(MB) And what about the groups that do *not* consider Christ to be divine, but
still call themselves "Christians"? Are they wrong? One side of the story is
certainly wrong as they can't both be right. How does one side defend its story
against the story of the other side?
(R) Perhaps you could
give a specific example of something you consider an important difference
amongst these mainline Christian sects? I'll make an attempt at explaining
it.(MB) Certainly the differences resulting from differences over how Catholics and
Protestants view the Virgin Mary are neither trivial nor confined to a minor
percentage of believers in small sects. Which side is right?You don't think that Catholics have major differences
from the others? What do you think caused the original
splitting away of the Protestants? You wouldn't consider 10
million people to be a significant number? And none of this
explains why any significant differences should exist in the first
place.
(R) I'll answer your questions in order: Of course there are differences
between the different sects, but there is still basic agreement on the major
issues of Christianity amongst these eight major denominations.(MB) If that is so, do we just brush aside those sects that *do* have major
differences and pretend that such differences aren't important? If there's
nothing to support the issues agreed upon by the majority, how can one
authoritatively say that they are right or that the minority is wrong?
(R) Everyone knows
the selling of absolution was the immediate cause which drove Luther to nail his
thesis's to the cathedral door in Rheims.(MB) The main problem with what "everybody knows" is that "everybody" is usually
either wrong or underinformed. I'd bet that the only thing that "everybody
knows" about this great event was that Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church
door (and even that is a debated issue and may well be an apocryphal tale).
This is demonstrated here by the incorrect statement that this momentous event took place in Rheims when, in
fact, the location was the Castle Church in Wittenberg.The issue of the papal practice of selling indulgences certainly qualified as
the straw which broke the camel's back and served as the catalyst for the final
break from an increasingly corrupt Catholicism. Anybody who would like to read
the text of the 95 Theses can do so by
selecting this
link.
(R) Yes, 10 million is a large number, but
its degree of significance in this context comes from what it is compared to,
not its own size.(MB) Why should that make any real difference in this case? If the issue is
supposedly cut-and-dried, 10 million believers who have disagreements with it is
extremely significant no matter how many people claim not to have any. In fact,
those 10 million are those whose differences are important enough to case a
schism within the religion. Other believers may have problems with certain
things, but may not consider them important or may not be comfortable with the
consequences of expressed disagreement. This does not make their differences
disappear. Finally, add the total number of non-believers to those who have
varying degrees of doubt or disagreement and you end up with a very significant
percentage of the entire population. This is enough to generate a legitimate
problem with the religion that demands some solid answers.
(R) Finally, the reason differences exist is because it is very difficult in
some of these matters to determine the real truth.(MB) Making Man aware of the real truth is well within the powers of an
omnipotent God, is it not? Also, the very book that seeks to chronicle the
historical accounts of Jesus can't agree with itself on numerous important
details. How does a non-believer read these contradictory accounts and build up
any coherent and believable picture of what the basis of Christianity is
supposed to be about?
(R) In your paragraph, you condemn the methods of argument used by religious
advocates, but as is usual, only through insinuation, since you detail none of
these methods.(MB) Oh, please. I've already detailed dozens of such arguments and explained
the problems with each of them. For example, you must certainly remember the
list of 10 tactics of Creationist argument. Don't tell me you've already
forgotten? Must I list everything all over again each time I make reference to
them?
(R) I responded by defining certain debate tactics which I deplore.(MB) Each of which you've mistakenly tried to attach to me and which I have
previously and continuously shown to be incorrect.
(R) Now, I agree you haven't purposely lied about anything, but the rest
applies, especially your anti-religious bigotry.(MB) If you admit that I haven't lied about anything, how can you justify a
charge of bigotry? Bigotry is not composed of truths, you know. Unpleasant
truths don't qualify as "bigotry", either.Quite correct. But, if you don't oppose it when asked
about it, then you must be implicitly supporting it.
(R) This is an odd bit of logic. It's good you put the words "when asked" in
there, otherwise I would rip it to shreds.(MB) That would also have completely changed the meaning
of my statement.
(R) Let me go on record as saying, that
when confronted with something I feel is wrong, I oppose it. However, I always
consider two things when deciding to whether or not to oppose anything: How
important is the issue? And, how convinced am I the opposing position is
wrong?(MB) Since religion is so important to believers, why would any believer not
oppose those who seek to damage or corrupt it? There's certainly no question
that believers would consider any opponent to be "wrong" -- whether they could
prove it or not. You have claimed more than once that the question of God's
existence is of ultimate importance. Why, then, would any believer hesitate to
stand up for his beliefs or oppose those who challenge them? If he won't stand
up for that, what will he stand up for?If it takes a "Jihad" to root out the nonsense in the religious community
and restore any amount of respectability and validity to it, then so be it. Will
you help or will you continue to support the nonsense?
(R) You're actually advocating a Holy War to root out apostasy?(MB) Such a Holy War doesn't have to be fought with bullets or torture devices.
If the religious community would just take a firm stand in uniting its beliefs
and putting down those who wrongfully invoke those beliefs to support unethical,
anti-social or criminal actions, they would take a giant step towards gaining
respectability. Then, of course, they could get about the business of actually
providing some evidence for their beliefs and, thereby, gaining validity for
them.